Comrade Bordiga, it seems, wanted to defend here the point of view of Italian Marxists, but he, nevertheless, did not respond to a single one of the arguments that were advanced here by other Marxists in favor of parliamentary activity.

Comrade Bordiga acknowledged that historical experience is not created artificially. He just told us that the struggle needs to be transferred to another sphere. Does he not know that every revolutionary crisis has been accompanied by a parliamentary crisis? He, it is true, spoke of the need to transfer the struggle to another sphere—to the Soviets. But Comrade Bordiga himself acknowledged that Soviets cannot be created artificially. The example of Russia proves that Soviets can be organized either during a revolution or immediately before a revolution. Even in the times of Kerensky, the Soviets (precisely the Menshevik Soviets) were organized in such a way that they could in no way form a proletarian power from themselves. Parliament is a product of historical development, which we cannot strike out from life so long as we are not strong enough to disperse the bourgeois parliament. Only by being a member of the bourgeois parliament can one, proceeding from the given historical conditions, struggle against bourgeois society and parliamentarism. The very same means which the bourgeoisie employs in the struggle must also be utilized by the proletariat—of course, with entirely different aims. You cannot assert that this is not so, and if you wish to dispute it, then you must thereby strike out the experience of all revolutionary events in the world.

You said that trade unions are also opportunistic, that they too represent a danger; but, on the other hand, you said that an exception must be made for trade unions, since they represent a workers' organization. But this is correct only to a certain degree. In trade unions too there are very backward elements. A portion of proletarianized petty bourgeoisie, backward workers, and small peasants—all these elements indeed think that their interests are represented in parliament; against this we must struggle by work in parliament and show the masses the truth through facts. Backward masses cannot be won over by theory—they need experience.

We saw this in Russia as well. We were compelled to convene the Constituent Assembly already after the victory of the proletariat in order to prove to the backward worker that he would achieve nothing through it. We were forced to compare the two experiences and concretely oppose the Soviets to the Constituent Assembly and present to him the Soviets as the only way out.

Comrade Suchí, a revolutionary syndicalist, defended the same theories, but logic is not on his side. He said that he is not a Marxist, so this is self-evident. But if you, Comrade Bordiga, assert that you are a Marxist, then you can be required to show greater logic. One must know how to smash parliament. If you can do this through armed uprising in all countries—that is very good. You know that we in Russia not only in theory but also in practice proved our will to destroy the bourgeois parliament. But you overlooked the fact that this is impossible without quite lengthy preparation and that in most countries it is still impossible to destroy parliament in one blow. We are compelled to wage struggle in parliament in order to destroy parliament. The conditions that determine the political line of all classes of modern society—you replace with your revolutionary will, and therefore forget that we, in order to destroy the bourgeois parliament in Russia, had first to convene the Constituent Assembly even after our victory. You said: "It is true that the Russian Revolution is an example that does not correspond to the conditions of Western Europe." But you brought forward not a single weighty argument to prove this to us. We passed through a period of bourgeois democracy. We passed through it quickly at the time when we were compelled to agitate for elections to the Constituent Assembly. And later, when the working class had already acquired the possibility of seizing power, the peasantry still believed in the necessity of the bourgeois parliament.

Taking into account these backward elements, we had to announce elections and show the masses through example, through facts, that this Constituent Assembly, elected during the greatest universal need, did not express the aspirations and demands of the exploited classes. Thereby the conflict between Soviet and bourgeois power became entirely clear not only to us, to the vanguard of the working class, but also to the vast majority of the peasantry, to minor officials, to the petty bourgeoisie, and so forth. In all capitalist countries there exist backward elements of the working class who are convinced that parliament is the true representative of the people and do not see that unclean means are employed there. They say that this is an instrument by which the bourgeoisie deceives the masses. But this argument must be turned against you, and it is turned against your theses. How will you expose to truly backward, deceived masses the true character of parliament? If you do not enter it, how will you expose this or that parliamentary maneuver, the position of this or that party, if you remain outside parliament? If you are Marxists, you must acknowledge that the mutual relationships of classes in capitalist society and the mutual relationships of parties are closely connected with one another. How, I repeat, will you show all this if you are not members of parliament, if you refuse parliamentary activity? The history of the Russian Revolution clearly showed that the broad masses of the working class, the peasantry, minor officials could not have been convinced by any arguments if they had not become convinced through their own experience.

It was said here that we lose much time by participating in parliamentary struggle. Can you imagine any institution in which all classes participate to such an extent as in parliament? This cannot be created artificially. If all classes are drawn into participation in parliamentary struggle, this happens because class interests and conflicts find their reflection in parliament. If it were possible everywhere at once to organize, let us say, a decisive general strike in order to overthrow capitalism in one blow, then the revolution would have already occurred in various countries. But one must reckon with facts, and parliament represents an arena of class struggle. Comrade Bordiga and those who stand at his point of view must tell the masses the truth. Germany is the best example that a Communist faction in parliament is possible, and therefore you should have openly told the masses: we are too weak to create a party with a solid organization. That would have been the truth that needed to be told. But if you had confessed this weakness to the masses, they would have become not your supporters but your opponents, supporters of parliamentarism.

If you say: "Comrade workers, we are so weak that we cannot create a sufficiently disciplined party that would be able to force deputies to submit to the party," then the workers will abandon you, since they will say to themselves: "How will we build the dictatorship of the proletariat with such weak people?"

You are very naive if you think that on the day of the victory of the proletariat—the intelligentsia, the middle class, the petty bourgeoisie will become Communist.

If you do not have this illusion, you must even now prepare the proletariat so that it carries out its line. In no sphere of state work will you find an exception to this rule. The day after the revolution you will see everywhere opportunistic lawyers calling themselves Communists, small bourgeois who recognize neither the discipline of the Communist Party nor the discipline of the proletarian state. If you do not prepare the workers to create a truly disciplined party that will force all its members to submit to its discipline, then you will never prepare the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think that you therefore do not wish to acknowledge that it is precisely the weakness of many new Communist parties that compels them to deny parliamentary work. I am convinced that the vast majority of truly revolutionary workers will follow us and speak out against your anti-parliamentarist theses.

A brief newspaper report was published on August 3 in *Krasnaya Gazeta* (Petrograd) No. 170

First published in full in 1921 in the book *2nd Congress of the Communist International. Stenographic Report*, Petrograd, 1921

Printed from the text of the book, verified against the text of the German edition *Der zweite Kongreβ der Kommunist. Internationale*